1. Technical Field
The present disclosure represents devices, systems and methods for sanitary packaging of food items.
2. Background and Relevant Art
Recently, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) expanded its interpretation of products subject to recall in the event of a pathogenic contamination event. Prior to this time, a recall event in raw or ground beef trimmings would be limited to just those trimmings and grinds produced at the same time the contaminated product was also being produced. For example, the product that would be affected under the prior USDA interpretation would include only those trimmings and grinds produced between one complete sanitation event, and the next complete sanitation event, with no trimmings or grinds being allowed to carry over from one sanitation period to the next.
More recently, and with the USDA's expanded interpretation, the products subject to recall would include not only trimmings and grinds, but also all primal cuts (whole muscle cuts). This expansion in interpretation greatly increases the costs, and therefore, increases the loss in profits that may be associated with a recall event.
Under the current USDA interpretation, there is a consideration that may give meat producers the ability to use additional microbial interventions on primal cuts as a further process step that would differentiate primal cuts from trim and ground beef in an event of a recall: apply a scientifically proven pathogen reduction process uniformly to all beef primal cuts immediately prior to packaging. In order to satisfy the USDA standards for this consideration, a meat producer must demonstrate that the pathogen reduction process does indeed uniformly apply an accurate amount of an antimicrobial agent to the primal cuts immediately prior to packaging.
There are several conventional antimicrobial agents that have been documented and acknowledged by the USDA as providing the necessary pathogen reduction step. Some antimicrobial agents that have been acknowledged include lactic acid, peracetic acid, ammonia hydroxide, and chlorine dioxide/sodium hypochlorite.
Although several antimicrobial agents may have been approved, the application of the antimicrobial agent to the primal cuts presents various challenges. A primary difficulty in the application process deals with obtaining complete product coverage, i.e., coverage on all surfaces of the primal cut. A second concern is that the antimicrobial agent must be applied at a carefully metered rate so that any individual primal cut does not gain more than 0.49% by weight with the addition of the antimicrobial solution (another USDA requirement). Additionally, application of a antimicrobial agent that provides full coverage and accurate amounts may be cost prohibitive and subject to human error in product handling and application rate.
For example, conventional methods of applying an antimicrobial agent may employ multiple spray nozzles that aim at all sides of the product as it passes along a moving conveyor. The conventional method may employ a split in the conveyor, or a transition between two consecutive conveyors, to spray the underside of the primal cut. Frequently, however, multiple primal cuts may enter the spraying area simultaneously and may be touching, overlapping, or otherwise obstructing the spray nozzles ability to coat all surfaces of any given piece of product. Therefore, such an application method requires constant oversight to ensure proper pacing, spacing, and antimicrobial solution coverage, which in turn increases costs and decreases efficiency.
Other conventional methods may also have difficulty applying the correct amount of the antimicrobial agent, thus causing the weight of the food product to increase over the USDA standard set at 0.49%. For example, in a typical method that employs several spray nozzles, it is may be difficult to meter the actual amount of antimicrobial solution that is applied to an individual piece of product. For instance, although the amount of antimicrobial solution may be metered through a spray nozzle, many times there is over-spray and/or under-spray that unpredictably affects the total amount of antimicrobial solution deposited on the piece of product. Thus, in many conventional processes, it is difficult to apply the correct amount of antimicrobial solution.
Moreover, in an effort to provide an even application and correct amount of antimicrobial agent, other convention methods may use labor intensive processes that increase the cost of packaging the meat, and decrease the efficiency of the packaging process. For example, some conventional processes employ workers that individually apply the antimicrobial solution to each piece of product. This process, however, may be time consuming, produce non-uniform results, and be rather expensive when compared to automated processes. Accordingly, there are a number of disadvantages in the conventional art of sanitary packaging of food items.